Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Interlaced was used for older technology. Screens and monitors worked by constantly refreshing the screen at a very fast rate. Because of the way that the human eye works we would not notice the fact that the screen was not refreshing in a uniform manner, however if you ever aimed a video camera (or even a regular camera and took a picture) at a television then you would notice that it looked strange, because the camera's own internal refresh rate was faster than that of the screen.

Interlacing video took advantage of the screen refresh rate. Video is simply many still frames, all played very quickly. With interlacing, one of those frames had every other row of pixels deleted. The next frame would also have every other row of pixels deleted, but it would offset that of the previous frame. The third frame would be the same (every other row of pixels deleted, but offset from the frame before it), and so on for the entire video. The benefit of this was that a lot of data could be cut out, which was important for broadcasters (both over the air and through cable). Given how fast each frame goes by, combined with the relatively poor resolution of televisions and slightly the idea of refresh rates, nobody noticed interlacing.

Things changed with newer display technologies. An LCD monitor or television did away with refreshing the entire screen at very fast intervals. Instead, your image is produced by pixels that change individually. Partly as a result, interlacing became noticable.

Progressive video is the full video, without the deletions that interlacing entails. As a result it doesn't look strange and one could argue that more detail can be seen.

I'm at the end of what I had to say, but as I wrote this I realized how tired I am; I may have made some errors in my explanation. If you're curious about interlacing there's a good Wikipedia entry on it that I read up on when I started doing work with digital and analogue video (analogue video always had to be deinterlaced). Anyone who notices errors in my post, please reply with corrections.

I still think interlaced for fast moving things on the screen is better. Because it allows for in-between captures where progressive cannot. But only if we consider interlaced to be 60/50 true half screens per second and progressive to be 30/25 full screens per second.
If progressive means 60/50 full screens per second, then of'course it is better.

* Higher vertical resolution than interlaced video with the same frame rate.

The perceived vertical resolution of displayed video is traditionally adjusted using a Kell factor coefficient. This coefficient has no fixed value and depends on display device. Its value for interlaced video is usually lower than for progressive video, when the same display device is used. When interlaced video is compared to progressive video with the same number of scan lines, interlaced video delivers lower perceived vertical resolution at a lower frame rate.

* Absence of visual artifacts associated with interlaced video of the same line rate, such as interline twitter.
* No necessity in intentional blurring (sometimes referred to as anti-aliasing) of video to reduce interline twitter and eye strain.

In the case of most media such as DVD movies and video games, the video is blurred during the authoring process itself to mask flicker artifacts when used on interlace displays. As a consequence, recovering the sharpness of the original video is impossible when the video is viewed progressively. An excellent, but rarely employed countermeasure to this is when display hardware and video games come equipped with options to blur the video at will, or to keep it at its original sharpness. This allows the viewer to achieve the desired image sharpness with both interlaced and progressive displays. An example of a video game with such a feature is Super Smash Bros. Melee, where a "Deflicker" option exists. Ideally it would be turned on when played on an interlaced display to reduce interline twitter, and off when played on a progressive display for maximum image clarity.

* Offers much better results for scaling to higher resolutions than equivalent interlaced video, such as upconverting 480p to display on a 1080p HDTV.

Scaling works well with full frames, therefore interlaced video must be deinterlaced before it is scaled. Deinterlacing can result in severe "combing" artifacts.

* Frames have no interlace artifacts and can be used as still photos.

A disadvantage of progressive scan is that it requires higher bandwidth than interlaced video that has the same frame size and vertical refresh rate. For explanations of why interlacing was originally used, see Interlace. For an in-depth explanation of the fundamentals and advantages/disadvantages of converting interlaced video to a progressive format, see Deinterlacing.

The wikipedia article is not completely wrong. But it is not spot on, since we are talking about high resolution video here. Not low resolution DVDs and digitalized analogue TV.

If you want to have stills, progressive video is certainly better.
Then again the artifact issue of interlaced video is not neccessary, since one can see it as half height images spread over twice the size. Which would not neccessarily mean more artifacts (only if interlaced material is digitalized in the wrong way, artifacts will be there). True interlaced video captures a half frame in 1/50 or 1/60 of a second, of'course the next half frame will not completely match since the movement of the objects is a 1/50 or 1/60 second later. Combining those two half images gives a combined image of history and present movement, which of'course will look not completely right.
In contrast a progressive scan will be one full frame at 1/30 or 1/25 of a second. Which is a lower resolution on the timescale obviously.

But as one can see, interlaced allowes for in-between frames which makes 60/50 true half frames per second possible. This has clear advantages over progressive video with only 30/25 true full frames per second. When there are fast moving objects you will notice that they seem to sorta jump over the screen instead of a fluent movement when progressive.
When the resolution is increased this jumping effect will be even more visible with lower frame rates of 30/25 fps. So true interlaced video with virtually twice the fps can actually result in a more fluent viewing experience.
Though I guess few people here actually made the test with a full HD beamer I assume...

So why is 1080P24 considered so good for film then? Just because it's the native frame rate of most film?

Exactly, there simply are no 48fps films (analogue/digital base material). Therefore 1080P24 is the best you can get from the analogue/digital material. 24fps is the technical limit for such devices these days.
But a completely rendered thing, like a video game can produce the 48fps. Then you could decide if you want 48fps half frames or 24fps full frames. In this case the half frames would optically beat the full frames, at least at high resolutions.
Yet normal analogue TV has true 60/50 fps half frames, which makes the matter a little confusing. Most TV cameras have true 60/50 fps half frames. But any adaption of a movie film will just be a bad compromise interlaced, since its based on 24 fps material.

Exactly, there simply are no 48fps films (analogue/digital base material). Therefore 1080P24 is the best you can get from the analogue/digital material. 24fps is the technical limit for such devices these days.
But a completely rendered thing, like a video game can produce the 48fps. Then you couold decide if you want 48fps half frames or 24fps full frames. In this case the half frames would optically beat the full frames, at least at high resolutions.

Ok so let me get this right.... half frames the larger number of FPS is better for higher resolutions, the frame doubling creates a smoother transiting effect.
Full frames the slower frame rate is better for lower resolutions?

Ok so let me get this right.... half frames the larger number of FPS is better for higher resolutions, the frame doubling creates a smoother transiting effect.
Full frames the slower frame rate is better for lower resolutions?

Sort of, yes. In lower resolutions you won't notice the jumping effect as much, since the jumping distance might just be a little larger then one pixel.
With high detail however the jumping distance now covers more pixels and this someway kills the animation effect. You feel as if the object is jumping/jittering over the screen.
However if the movement is really fast, like watching the tennis ball in tennis or a fast teleprompter's writing running through the screen, then even in low resolutions interlaced will work better because it allows for a higher resolution in the timescale.

Sort of, yes. In lower resolutions you won't notice the jumping effect as much, since the jumping distance might just be a little larger then one pixel.
With high detail however the jumping distance now covers more pixels and this someway kills the animation effect. You feel as if the object is jumping/jittering over the screen.
However if the movement is really fast, like watching the tennis ball in tennis or a fast teleprompter's writing running through the screen, then even in low resolutions interlaced will work better because it allows for a higher resolution in the timescale.

So HD video is high quality jittery pictures for sports and yet...its sold for sports...oh well..they are sports fans after all....

So HD video is high quality jittery pictures for sports and yet...its sold for sports...oh well..they are sports fans after all....

Well it is still offered in interlaced. And if the source is lets say 60fps (not very likely today but maybe in the near future), then it will look quite okay, even with fast movement.
On the other side most LCD and plasma TVs have such slow respond times per pixel, that progressive might still look better on them. They just can't display the high fps without motion blurring effects these days anyway (its a quality issue of display devices too).

Well it is still offered in interlaced. And if the source is lets say 60fps (not very likely today but maybe in the near future), then it will look quite okay, even with fast movement.
On the other side most LCD and plasma TVs have such slow respond times per pixel, that progressive might still look better on them. They just can't display the high fps without motion blurring effects these days anyway (its a quality issue of display devices too).

So tvs(LCD/plasma) are basically sold on theoretical limits that are not quit fully implemented in broadcast or film?

Heh no wonder I am not hell bent on a 1200$ new TV.

Its funny, since it works both ways. Movie film has in theory a very high resolution, that is still not quite matched with 1080p. Then again this highly depends on how well the whole filming equipuement is, how much light they had and so on (the less light, the more noise/grain).
But fps-wise movie films are inferior to what is technically possible on high end display devices with 1080i. Then again, who owns a high end display device?
Most TVs these days are HD ready (means they don't even display the full HD spec resolution), and those that are full HD still have difficulties with response times. At the moment you have the choice of either taking a TN-panel which has a decent fps capability but a bad contrast ratio (and therefore limited colors). Or a PVA-panel which offers a good contrast ratio (more colors) but is limited in the fps capability, since it has lower response times in contrast to TN panels. (MVA and IPS excluded here to make the whole issue less complex)
The good thing is, that the low response times are not visible as hard cuts in the frames but more like a temporaly smoothed image... means it blurs when the motion is high.
Of special interest here is the time a pixel needs to turn white from completely black (which is often the faster value) and the opposit to that, when a pixel turns from white to black. The time the pixel needs to do that in a decent way defines the response time. Why the word "decent" you might ask... well the pixel is not required to turn completely black, just black enough to reach a certain contrast ratio that is defined for a display device. If the testers really waited until the pixel is completely black they need to wait a long time (like minutes or hours).
But I guess I should not further go into details here... otherwise this answer turns out just too boring.

edit: just to close the loop and finally come back to the 24fps movie film...

The 24fps movie film does the blurring thing once things become too fast for it. That way it still looks like okay when it is in movement. But it will look blurry in a still capture. Most of the display devices these days are not capable to clearly outperform the movie film in this aspect. Thus it doesn't matter if the source is blurry.
Once the display devices become better, it will make a difference if something just looks fast because it is blurred along the way it moves, or if it looks fast because it is displayed rather sharp and uses high fps to not look like it is jittering over the screen. The improvement in quality can only come with the improvement in the base material and the display devices.

first off: Where can I learn how to read japanese other than school? is there any good websites or books I can buy? the thread "learn japanese" only covers speech...)

Actually.. it covers more - it has many posts about *written* Japanese as well... but you have to browse more of the thread (its a long one).

School is the best option (like a community college). But there are books like "Japanese in Mangaland" which is the first of a several book series in how to read manga. Reading hiragana/katakana dialog isn't too terrible once you've memorized the characters and have a decent vocabulary built up. Reading more sophisticated manga (reading lvl over 3rd grade JP) will require you to start memorizing kanji (chinese characters with two meanings depending on their usage). Since you probably want to read manga - I'd recommend books that teach the kanji in the same order that Japanese learn them (so you can start with simple manga and work up).
Example I like is: A Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters by Henshall.

Quote:

Does anyone know how to make a siggy?

Most people do... you go to User CP and select Edit Signature. An edit page is activated where an image may be uploaded and displayed using the SIGPIC metatag. You may also enter text. If you want someone to create you a special image - go to your favorite anime's subforum or thread and post a request. Read the forum rules and make sure your signature meets required restrictions (height, width, size_of_file, PG13-rated).

Quote:

Does this forum have an rpg thread?

Not as such, the majority of citizens here don't seem to care for them. Read the forum rules: roleplaying is expressly forbidden. It has been suggested that one could do collaborative storytelling in the Fan Creations thread but you may find people there don't care for that either. Most people are here to discuss anime/manga and associated merchandise or to share fan creations.

Quote:

If I want to know the anime that a character in someone's avatar is from, how do I go about finding such information?

Send them a PM (private message) or visit their member page and post a query on their bulletin board. That's how most people ask me about my avatar. Click on their name and a popup will give you choices.

Quote:

When the forum thread says Torrents, does that only include tv anime, or does it include games and their translation patches?

It only concerned with torrents of anime (tv/film) - that forum is a torrents submission request and only for unlicensed anime (go to www.animesuki.com for the current list of torrents - if you want something that isn't there, its either licensed or not being fansubbed). Read the forum rules. Warez, cracked games, etc are a way to Instant Permaban. Game discussion is in the Games subforum. Translation patches are a grey area but there are some threads where their locations are posted (the files themselves are usually on rapidshare or other file hosting sites).

Unless you're submitting a torrent link, don't bother posting there. If you're trying to get a file with a torrent link that has zero seeds - see the Reshare Request subforum.

Quote:

How can I help in translating a game/anime?

For anime, go to the Fansubbing subforum and lurk a long time, read the threads, see what people want. Download and learn to use Aegisub, read the posts on subtitling, encoding, timing, quality checks, etc.
If you post before you know what you're talking about to some extent -- you'll probably be eaten alive Most people learn their skills by reading about them first and then asking.

Quote:

Is there any way I can help animesuki?

The moderators will probably say: READ THE FORUM RULES and the FAQs. Then be a good citizen; report possible rules infractions; avoid being a twit. Post in the proper locations, etc. Search a forum or subforum very hard before starting a new thread. Visit the Forum Feedback section and keep up with whats going on. Don't ask to be a moderator, that pretty much guarantees you'll never be asked

Oh, did I say "Read the Forum Rules" (and FAQs)? It also doesn't hurt to read the Stickies in each forum or to read the First Post before commenting in a thread.

Vexx covered most of the questions, so i'll just add in a few links that might be helpful.

If you aren't getting a response from a person about their avatar or if you want to know where some anime character comes from in a picture,signature etc, you can ask that in the Anime identification thread

silly question:
How do I uninstall Flash Player 10 when I use Firefox?
I've used the Adobe uninstall program 3 times now but every time I do a version check to see if it is really gone it still tells me I'm using version 10
and without it gone it is no use running the setup for version 9 because it won't work lol
as for why? version 10 doesn't allow me to watch online tutorials for some reason it just leaves the video open as a blank spot >.<

edit:

argh.. 10 seconds after posting this I look to see if anything has happened and now all of a sudden they start playing grr!
never mind people just move along, nothing to see here!